that had me going until i saw the bush quote "fark `em all," at which point I knew this was silly satire and nothing more. yay for the flame war that ensured by the asshats that didn't bother reading it

A British lawyer is emerging as a key witness in a $180 million bribery investigation that could lead to the indictment of US vice president Dick Cheney.Last week, US oil corporation Halliburton cut all ties with a former senior executive, Albert Stanley, after it emerged he had received as much as $5m in 'improper personal benefits' as part of a $4bn gas project in Nigeria. Halliburton also sacked a second 'consultant', William Chaudan in connection with the bribery allegations. At the time of these alleged payments, Cheney was chief executive of the corporation.

French investigating magistrate Renaud van Ruymbeke is examining a stream of payments surrounding the controversial project which was built during the regime of the late dictator Sani Abacha. The judge has uncovered a $180m web of payments channelled through offshore companies and bank accounts.

The Nigerian project to build a huge gas plant was signed with an international consortium that included Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root. Cheney retired from the chief executive post in 2000.

The French judge is considering summoning Cheney to give evidence in his probe to ascertain whether the US vice president knew about the alleged commission payments.

If there were some legitimate strumm und drang around gays, I wouldn't mind. Unfortunately, all the haters left several hours ago. We now have a bunch of self-congragulatory civil libertarians hanging around saying how nice it is to have married gays.

Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but Al Sharpton is not the voice of the Black community. Although our skin tones are similar, believe it or not, ALL BLACK PEOPLE DON'T THINK THE SAME. I know it's a shock so, if you need a minute to get yourself together, I understand.

Thank you for that minute. Here I was all ready to drop into my ghetto slang for you, and write the entire post in rap lyrics while I ate a fried chicken stuffed with watermelon, collared greens, pork chitlins, all stolen from the man cuz I'm keeping it real. But now I see the error of my ways.

Second, I am a Black man and I am offended by the civil rights, gay rights comparison. Homosexuals are not being denied basic human rights and while I'm sure gays would appreciate getting a few tax credits thrown their way, we just wanted to sit on the farking bus without having to get up for some prick because his skin lacks melonin. I'm from the school of live and let live, so by all means, let gays marry, but don't try to piggy back the civil rights movement. The only thing the two movements have in common is their White-bread, Anglo-Christian, Conservative enemy who's mission in life appears to be meddling in the lives of others.

Ahh, but they do have something in common. The anti-gay marriage argument is surprisingly similar to the argument for the ban on interracial marriages, in Virginia 1953.

That argument was: It's not discrimination because blacks can marry blacks and whites can marry whites. Everyone can equally marry persons of the same color.

This is surpisingly similar to the anti-gay marriage argument: It's not discrimination because gay men can marry a woman, and a gay woman can marry a man. Everyone can equally marry persons of an opposite gender.

What this does is socially marginalize gay Americans and relegate them to a second-class status, for something they do behind closed doors, at the expense of no-one, and something that is probably genetically determined.

Similarly, gays are being kept out of the military on the exact same grounds that had traditionally barred blacks from serving; that other soldiers' predjudices would create tension and work against the forming of cohesive fighting units; that white soldiers would never be able to rely on a black man in the trenches -- not because there's anything wrong with black people, but because the military is traditionally a white institution, and inherent prejudices of white soldiers cannot realistically be ignored.

You have to remember that the attack on blacks in the middle of the 20th century was an attack on black culture as much it was an attack on just having black skin -- that culture was offensive to those white-bread anglo conservatives. The problem is that specific group of white people believe THEIR culture and THEIR morality system is somehow superior to everyone else's, a culture that conveniently places them at the top. Any dissenting group that takes pride in its own culture is viewed as a threatening agent to THEIR American way of life.

You want to not have to sit on the back of a bus? How about not having cops bust down your door, go into your bedroom, and arrest you for whatever it is gays do behind their bedroom door. How about having the right to visit your life partner on his/her death bed? Having the right to adopt children (which interracial couples used to not be able to do)? How about the right to have your life partner covered by your medical/dental plan, without gender discrimination?

Hmm, to late to get into anything and I won't change anyones mind today, so I'll just say this.

Unless we all saw God, Budda, Mohammad, Shiva or Zeus come from the sky and tell all of us at the same time something is ment to be someway or else, then beyond that its just a fairytale. So people should stop speaking for God, cause guess what, your an asshat for doing it. Being so vain as to assume you matter enough in the universe for God to single you out and tell you what "he really wants, what he really really wants", is wee-tard-ed beyond reason.

2004-07-12 02:39:35 PM Omega Ohmkeylock71 --Most of our growth is from immigration, not home-grown. The US birth replacement rate is even, meaning we're just replacing ourselves and not adding to the population.

So we're OK like I said before. Why do people need incentives to have kids then?

That essentially says eventually America will be taken over by immigrant populations rather than home-grown.

Again, what's the problem with this? We're a nation founded by and built by immigrants, if memory serves me correct.

Did I say it did? No, I'm simply saying it shouldn't be a concern. I don't think married couples should get any added benefits or tax breaks until there are children. Until then, I don't see what makes you, your wife, or gay couples any better than singles to deserve benefits and tax breaks.

OK, that's your opinion, I guess. US Tax code seem to disagree with you, as I believe married couples do get tax breaks regardless of having children or not. Keeping that in mind, if gay marriage is legal, as it is here in MA, then they are entitled to the full rights of a married couple. That's all I'm saying.

I think a lot of straight people are worried about letting teh fruits marry because they may do better at it than we have.

Sanctity of Marriage my arse! Half of marriages end in divorce! What was so sacred about Brittney's 48 hour marriage? Or Anna Nicole Smith marrying some billionaire fossil? What about the 'Green Card' marriages???

And really, if Tim and Steve decide to get hooked, whats it to you? Does it change the way you feel about your husband/wife? Does it make the life you've built with them any less?

If gay marriage were legalised today, wouldn't you still have to go to work the next morning? Wouldn't you still have a mortgage to pay? Wouldn't people still be getting blown to bits in Iraq? Is this what you want your federal government to worry about?

Republicans always seem to be railing against big government but they don't seem to have a problem with the government telling them who they can marry.

I'm not Australian but I understand what they mean when they say "Thank god we got the criminals."

Cheney is so shady. Bush supporters, does it not bother you that your candidate is constantly involved in corruption ?? Does this not bother you in the least? Its one accusition after another. Just give up. Kerry won't be so bad, He's not nearly as liberal as the GOP is trying to paint him. Give someone else a chance. He may be a politician, but give him a chance, and ig he sucks, put someone new in in '08. Bush has failed. He's a liar and a cheat.

So according to this thread, Cheney may be indicted by the French for some kind of bribery while working as Halliburton CEO and some how whether or not Noah had adequate provisions on the Ark and something to do with homosexual marriage plays into it. Btw the Buddha is not God nor does he play one on TV. You may now rejoin the flamewar already in progress.

Ya know, I'm amazed that there's even a gay marriage debate at all.On the one side you've got:Being gay isn't a crime (and it isn't)Having gay sex isn't a crime (almost true, and fast becoming that way)Gay bad parents (and our legal system thinks that way)If you want to restrict somebody's freedom, there should at least be a logical reason for it, such as it hurts someone else in some way (hard to argue)The only tangible difference between a gay couple and a hetero couple is a matter of how different plumbing is employed behind closed doors. None of our business. (logical)

On the other side you've got:If gay people get married it will weaken the institution of marriage (well, maybe if there was a cause and effect given...)My black book says that God doesn't like gay people.

Does that about sum it up? If so, why is there a debate at all??? And why is the majority on the irrational side of it??

I am always puzzled when religious groups seek to change secular law to reflect their views. After all, if one is a Southern Baptist isn't that person already bound by Church Law and there is no need for a kind of double jeopardy that would result if a secular law were added?

The vast majority of churches forbid homosexuality and state that Hell could be the punishment for the unrepentant. The members of those churches are already under a code of conduct that they must follow. I see no reason to put them under yet another code of conduct.

Perhaps these Churches are really simply trying to force others to adopt their belief system. Actually, I do not think that that is true either. It seems that they do not care if a person believes in their doctrine as long as that person has the outward appearance of following the rules.

In the end it seems that any law passed based on religious ideals does not affect the current members of a church but, instead, only affect people of different beliefs. And, I would further argue that that is entirely the point.

I know its late, but I just have to say Jake Steed is the worst arguer ever.

When confronted with the fact that over 200 species have exhibited homosexual behavior, he goes to the "pee in their own mouth card"? All the while never providing a reason other than personal preference for denying gay marriage benefits?

Yeah, you owned that argument. Good work.

/dumb ass

The ignorance of the name calling "tolerant" folks on here is very surprising.

The fact is that there are at least 500 species that exhibit homosexual behavior, not 200. Got that PawisBetlog? No one confronted me me with that fact. The person who brought it up was replying to someone else. I never stated homosexual behavior was unnatural.

I brought up the monkey peeing into its own mouth as a subtle hint that just because there are other species who do things doesnt mean it is normal for humans to do things i.e., peeing in their own mouths.

Secondly, I am not on here to argue and own. Im just giving my point of view. I gave several reasons why I am against gay marriage and one of my reasons is that the majority of Americans including myself believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. If you dont like it thats fine but dont resort to name calling just because you are too ignorant to debate topics or post anything productive (if not productive at least make it funny)

Perhaps if you learned how to read and think before you spew your big mouth off you wont look so stupid and you'll be a better arguer.

Kerry won't be so bad, He's not nearly as liberal as the GOP is trying to paint him.

I know.He voted for the Iraq war resolution. True.He voted the patriot act. True, but voting against it unless you were the picked "dissenter" would have been political suicide. Everyone in congress voted for it. He's against PAIIHe voted for NAFTA True.He voted for the DOMA, False. and is against gay marriage. He's said he's for civil unions, but I don't think I've heard anything saying he was against Gay Marriage specifically.He personally is not pro-choice. But he supports the legality of abortion.

I gave several reasons why I am against gay marriage and one of my reasons is that the majority of Americans including myself believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

In Virginia, in 1953, the majority of the population (polled at 97% at the time) was FOR a ban on interracial marriage.

The majority of Americans, sadly, are probably for gun control of some sort.

The majority of Americans probably consider dissent unpatriotic.

But our country was not founded on bending the will of the few to the will of the many -- this is not democracy; this is mob rule. Our country was founded on the notion that minority opinions and freedoms are ones MORE deserving of protection, not less, specifically because the danger is there to democratically deprive them.

Vet_Curm & Nomales believe -"If you believe that homosexuality is a choice, then I can see where your viewpoint comes from.If you believe (as I do) that you are born homosexual, that it is not a choice you consciously make, then I cannot see how what happened to Matthew Shepard is that much different from what happened to Emmett Till."----------------------------------------------------------

Well, allow me to tell you the difference. First, you must make the distinction between acts of bigotry and SYSTEMATIC OPPRESSION. Yes, gays have been beaten, killed, and denied rights at times. However, IT WAS NEVER AGAINST THE LAW FOR A HOMOSEXUAL TO READ, VOTE, OR EAT IN A SPECIFIC RESTURANT. Homosexuals were not forced into segregated schools that denied them an education comperable to that of the peers they would one day compete against.

THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT IS NOT ABOUT SECURING HUMAN RIGHTS FOR HOMOSEXUALS. THE PURPOSE OF THE MOVEMENT IS TO HAVE HOMOSEXUALITY BE ACCEPTED/TOLERATED BY THE MASSES.

I too, believe that people are born homosexual, but there IS one choice that the gay community has... NO ONE HAS TO EVER KNOW THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. That's what the movement is about. It's about their ability to disclose their sexual preference and have it be accepted as normal as it relates to job placement, housing, marriage, ect.

True, I was born Black, just as a homosexual was born gay. But I'm Black everyday and there is a no way to deny it. I don't need a rainbow bumber sticker or a rally cry to let everyone know it. When I walk into a board room the opinions about me are formed on sight. When the police pull me over they know I'm Black before I tell them. When the Dean of Admissions reviews my transcript there is a little box checked off so that he knows I'm a man of color. The lone similarity between the two movements is the enemy.

When and if gays are allowed to marry I'm not so sure they'll do better than their hetrosexual marriages (outside of Hollywood). Unless of course they are more tolerant of infidelity? Can any gays answer that one for me?

43 percent of the gay men estimated having sex with 500 or more different partners. 75 percent estimated 100 or more partners. 28 percent estimated more than 1,000 partners.

79 percent said that more than half of their partners were anonymous.

70 percent said that more than half of their partners were men with whom they had sex only once.

[He voted the patriot act.] True, but voting against it unless you were the picked "dissenter" would have been political suicide. Everyone in congress voted for it. He's against PAII This is no excuse. You really want to elect someone that refuses to do what's right when it's "political suicide"? By the way, from the voting records: Feingold (D-WI), Nay.

[He voted for the DOMA] False Really? (from: http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm) "Supports federal DOMA, but not Massachusetts DOMA. (Feb 26)"He's said he's for civil unions, but I don't think I've heard anything saying he was against Gay Marriage specifically. I've seen quotes where he specifically said he does not support Gay Marriage, even though he does support civil unions. "Seperate but Equal" is never equal.

[So why are you voting for him?]He's not Bush. But his voting record is close.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

but seriously...

From the BBC: "The Netherlands and Belgium are the only countries in the European Union where same-sex "marriage" is legal. However, about 10 other EU member states recognize same-sex partnerships with varying rights. France, Germany and the Scandinavian countries allow forms of "registered partnerships," and Britain recently enacted a law enabling homosexual couples to register in "civil partnerships." "

And no, noone marrying their sisters or any of that other slippery slope fear "well if we legalize this, people will marry goats!" bullshiat has happened where they've enacted legislation to legally recognize gay partnerships. So STFU.

What is the danger in allowing the state to support a loving relationship? What is the real danger, exactly? How will it effect your life in any way? Why should you deny other consenting adults the happiness to publically and legally express their love and devotion for one another? And that's somehow Moral to deny this of your fellow citizens? Because, why, they might or might not practice sexual acts that you dont like? Millions of heteros have anal sex, should they not get married either?

Why should you care if two gay men have the same rights of property and inheritance as a hetero couple? Why is that "immoral"?

Why shouldnt a couple who've been loyal and true and devoted for years be any less valid in the eyes of the state than anyone else?

For those of you who were previously arguing over the story of Noah's ark (sorry I came in late) recent evidence (real evidence not just faith) has shown that most ancient civilizations and religions had their own versions of this story and that the closer you get to the present the more sensational the story gets. All of the stories point back to a single story of a man who owned a trade boat and that his ship, already laden with animals to trade, was caught in a rare storm than inundated the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and swept his boat out into the sea for a few days.

Just remember, the bible was not only written by man, it was EDITED by man. Some people saw it fit to remove sections of the bible because it wa conflicting with their beliefs. Word of God you say? No, its the word of man.